Reviewer 1

1. The instruments illustrated in the schematic diagram i.e. F1, P1, T1, are to be stated in the
text.

2. Is the arsenic considered as EDC? If yes you could discuss a little bit on it.

3. What is the permissible level for arsenic in fish and fishery product? And compare with the
reading during the disaster.

4. Does the pH adjustment prior to adsorption of arsenic increase the operating cost of the
water treatment unit?

5. How do you drop 2 microL of water onto membrane surface. Using sessile drop method?

6. Any model used to simulate the migration of water vapour?

Reviewer 2

This study was based on authors’ previous work on the fabrication of kaolin hollow fibre
membrane, while focuses more on applications, i.e. membrane distillation for water
treatment. In overall, a quite integrated study with plenty of experimental results, with some
comments, as provided below, for the authors to respond:

1. Abstract: the sentence of “A high CA value … contaminant level of 10 ppb.” is really

long and even a bit confusing. Also, “and suitable mechanical strength (55. 39 MPa)” the
mechanical strength seems to be low and how “suitable” is it for MD application?

2. The 3rd bullet point of Highlights is lack of specifications, what kind of properties and
performance are affected by how much?

3. Suggest adding values of temperature in the graphical abstract. Also, scales of SEMs in
graphical abstract missing, and no idea of which image corresponds to which membrane
surface (inner or outer)?

4. English needs to be improved thoroughly, with grammar problems throughout the

paper, in addition to some long and confusing descriptions.

5. Page 4, last sentence of the first paragraph “The only problem of ceramic ….due to the
cost of raw materials …”. In most cases, the high sintering temperature, which requires
intensive energy supply, is the main reason of high production costs of ceramic membranes,
instead of raw materials that takes a much smaller portion.

6. “at flow rate of 0.023 m/s” appeared several times in the paper, with the unit for
velocity, instead of flow rate.
7. Page 9 “The finger-like structure was formed …a less porous sponge-like
structure” A reason of forming the presented microstructure is due to the fact that inner
surface contacts with water earlier than the outer surface, which was not involved in
related discussions.

8. Page 11, “the is because h-KHFM …decreased the contact angle value”. Is this
explanation in line with any published work? With regard to similar scales of surface
roughness affecting CA for instance?

9. Discussions on figure 5, especially for a more significantly increased mechanical

strength for 1300 and 1500 C, are not sufficient, neither convincing.

10. In figure 6, hollow symbols with solid lines were used for pore sizes larger than 1
micron, while such symbols can’t be found in the symbol list. Also, information for some
membranes seem missing.

11. Page 16, effects of pH on permeation flux, is it more related to how easy/hard for
water molecules transferring away from liquid phase, which leads to different permeation
flux at different pH values? Or how pH values change the properties of solutes that are
totally rejected in MD?

12. Page 19, the lower permeation flux at 80 C was correlated to potentially change in
the structure of membrane material, any XRD to support this? Also, does this mean that
hydrothermal stability of kaolin membrane can be a concern for MD?